Seven in-custody patients from unit PX3, a 15-bed adult forensic mental health unit located at Health Sciences Centre (HSC), alleged that they were confined to their locked ward 24 hours per day without any outside fresh-air time, which violates basic human rights and impedes recovery from illness. Shortly after we began our investigation, access to the forensic courtyard for non-acute security risk patients on PX3 was reinstated. While we concluded that the decision to suspend access to the courtyard pending a review of security concerns was consistent with applicable laws and policies, the amount of time taken to resolve this matter and resume courtyard access was unreasonable. We recommended that Manitoba Health, Seniors and Active Living and Manitoba Justice collaborate to develop a protocol that will assist in the timely identification and resolution of security issues on PX3 in order to help prevent similar delays in the future. The departments accepted the recommendation.

We received complaints from ten individuals and the chief administrative officer of the Rural Municipality of Argyle, who alleged they were not provided with adequate notification about a proposed water project by the Town of Pilot Mound and therefore were unable to formally register their concerns with Manitoba Sustainable Development’s Environmental Approvals Branch. We determined that the public bodies involved with the implementation of the water project met legislative and regulatory requirements regarding public notification of the project. However, we are of the view that improvements can be made to ensure a more comprehensive notification process to allow individuals to fully participate in the review process. In addition, we suggested improvements to the communication and administrative coordination between the branches of Sustainable Development and the Manitoba Water Services Board with respect to providing information about projects.

Manitoba Housing, a division of Manitoba Families, manages a Homeowners Renovation Assistance Program (HRAP) that provides funding for household repairs to low income homeowners. We received a complaint from a homeowner who applied for financial assistance for repairs but was refused. While we determined that the decision was made in accordance with the eligibility criteria for HRAP, we did make several suggestions for administrative improvements to the program, particularly with respect to ensuring applicants clearly understand the terms and conditions of the program.

An individual believed that the Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation (MHRC) had retained architectural services for a project without a competitive bidding process. MHRC explained to us that rather than using a competitive process, it expanded the scope of existing contracts it had awarded after a public tendering process. We found that while MHRC’s decision deviated from existing procedure, MHRC’s rationale for its approach in this case was reasonable. We also found that the agreement to expand the scope of the work was initially done without putting the details in writing. We recommended that when tendering contracts that may be extended, MHRC should look at opportunities to clearly communicate this intent to potential bidders at the outset of the process and that MHRC formally document its commitments of public funds in exchange for goods and services. MHRC accepted our recommendations.

Concern that the Manitoba Securities Commission considered information at a hearing that the complainant did not know would be discussed at the hearing. Complaint partly resolved; administrative improvement suggested.

Concern about Winnipeg taxicab drivers who were allegedly operating illegally outside of the City of Winnipeg and the response of the Motor Transport Board and the Taxicab Board to the issue. Recommendations made.

Concern about the denial of an application for disaster financial assistance by the Disaster Financial Assistance Board and the board’s reliance on the principle of concurrent causation. Recommendations made.

We received a complaint that the Manitoba Securities Commission failed to investigate the complainants’ grievance regarding an investment advisor and that they were not provided with sufficient information about the advisor including the advisor’s active supervisory terms and conditions. Based on our investigation, we found that the commission’s decision not to formally open an investigation into the complainants’ concerns was not wrong or unreasonable. However, the commission should have provided the complainants with the investment advisor’s supervisory terms and conditions that were part of the public record when the complainants first brought their grievance forward. As a result of our investigation, the complaint is supported in part and two recommendations were made to improve administrative accountability. The commission accepted the recommendations and has taken steps to implement them.

An individual complained about how the North Eastman Health Authority (now the Interlake-Eastern Regional Health Authority) handled a critical incident resulting from an injury he sustained at a health-care facility. The ombudsman found that the health authority was not in compliance with some policies related to critical incidents. While Manitoba Health was not the subject of the complaint, the ombudsman directed two recommendations to Manitoba Health because it is the body that provides direction to health authorities on a number of matters, including critical incident reporting. Manitoba Health agreed with the ombudsman’s recommendations.

Complaint that the requirement for an export permit for inter-provincial transport of game birds was inconsistent with The Wildlife Act and that the Manitoba Hunting Guide did not clearly inform the public about the requirements regarding inter-provincial transport of game birds.

A complainant applied for disaster financial assistance through the Lake Manitoba Financial Assistance Program for a groundwater well he believed was contaminated by the 2011 Lake Manitoba flood, and his application was denied. He appealed the decision to the Flood Appeals Commission. The commission upheld the decision to deny financial compensation.